hell no we wont go: but we may leave the past as our future

On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.
So much for the history of morality.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742257.html

Another day of slaughter, after the deliberate targeting of ambulances by the IDF (hardly the first time) and the usual reply of "well hezbollah use these vehicles as a taxis service" (as if stating it makes it true), comes the news that once again the IDF has targeted UN observers, as it has done on more than a few occasions (see Qana for one of the most heinous). During the Suez crisis the UN regularly complained that the IDF were deliberately targeting their observers and observation posts as a means to stop them doing the very job that they were authorised to do, observe, and to quote the UN forces commander at the time, "to stop them observing Israeli attrocities".

According to reports filtering through the UN observation post had been shelled some 14 times over the previous day, forcing the blue berets inside their bunker, which was then hit with a aerial bomb. Was the bomb one of the bunker busters and flown by one of the F16's delivered to the IDF the day that Condi Rice sat down to discuss tying in Olmerts election plans with those of the Republicans November desires. After all a good spin is the need for a steady, hold the line, we are the only ones strong on defence, WW3 is upon us and we need to be with the president in these turbulent times series of ads to bolster the case for voting republican.

"I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN Observer post in southern Lebanon,'' Annan said in a statement.

A forceful statement from a man given to bending over backwards to appease all sides.

Here lies the problem with the calls for sending in force of peacekeepers, as opposed to observers, diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of balancing both sides and making a coherent statement towards actions or words and for it to work it needs the voice in the centre making sense of it all to be an honest broker, neutral if you will. So far all calls for a force to be sent into Southern Lebanon have been made under the explicit knowledge that they will essentially only be operating to disarm Hezzbollah, therefore, simply acting as proxys for the IDF and doing the same job that the IDF is currently destroying Lebanon for. No one has even remotely suggested that the UN/NATO force will confiscate the IDF's F16's or artillery, or has imagined what would happen if they in fact "observed" an Israeli breach and clashed with the IDF. In 18 years of Israels occupation of the south, the IDF failed completely to erradicate Hezzbollah and at the end of the occupation, actually strengthened Hezzbollah by allowing them to adopt the title of "defenders of Lebanon".

Besides all that, which countries would be even remotely be acceptable to both sides or be prepared to have their troops used as fodder in between these forces. Iran? Pakistan? India? Moorocco? So far no one has been to willing to put their hands up, but many have made the call.

On another point, is it time to start calling Israel the proxy for the US, I have heard daily the call each time Hezzbollah is mentioned that it is a prox for Iran and Syria, as though the actions of one is directly guided by the other. Surely the same is very true for the Olmert government, and it is as true that the Israel's take as much notice of the Americans, as Hezzbollah does of Syria and Iran.

Which leads me onto a pertinent quote from Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjold, Secretary-General of the United Nations (died 1961) here I believe he is speaking on the Suez crisis. (more on this tomorrow:

The Assembly has witnessed over the last weeks how historical truth is established; once an allegation has been repeated a few times, it is no longer an allegation, it is an established fact, even if no evidence has been brought out in order to support it.

Those who invoke history will certainly be heard by history. And they will have to accept its verdict.

to Israel PM Ben-Gurion, 1957:

You are convinced that the threat of retaliation has a deterrent effect. I am convinced that it is more of an incitement to individual members of the Arab forces than even what has been said by their own governments. You are convinced that acts of retaliation will stop further incidents. I am convinced that they will lead to further incidents….You believe that this way of creating respect for Israel will pave the way for sound coexistence with the Arab people. I believe that the policy may postpone indefinitely the time for such coexistence…. I think the discussion of this question can be considered closed since you, in spite of previous discouraging experiences, have taken the responsibility of large-scale tests of the correctness of your belief.

On February 11th, 1957, Mr. John Foster Dulles, United States Secretary of State, submitted certain Proposals to the Israeli Government which were, in effect, that:
"Israel should withdraw her troops from the Gulf of Aqaba region and the Gaza Strip, in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations General Assembly.

iraq

A band of anti-American insurgents has named itself the "1920 Revolution Brigades," and the most important Shia cleric Ayatollah ali Sistani in a newspaper advertisement asked Iraq's influential tribes to remember.

"We want you to be revolutionaries ... you should have a big role today, as you had in the revolution in 1920," the ad said. (Miami herald, jan. 2004)

There is one thing that the Arab communities are good at and that is remembering the past as tho it were only yesterday. Whereas we, the MTV generation, can barely remember the lies of the past two weeks, so in order to give a bit of an update on the past and how well it will serve for the future, a quick peak a the rebellions fo the 1920's, the last time a western power (the english) decided that they should decide the future of Iraq.

From the past, a big fat blast of the present:

you can easily swap any name of the british middle eastern raj for the players of today. It seems neither language nor ideas have changed since 1932. Maybe its time for the US to pull another "Mission Accomplished" and abandon Iraq to the Iraqis. Let the spin doctors fight it out at Fox. This is mainly a compendeum from a Foriegn Affairs article from march/april 2006.

From T.E Lawrence:

Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad.

Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
........
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. all experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?

Colonial secretary Leopold Amery noted that critics of thier policy and calls for a pullout of Iraq by newspapers " a reckless disregard of the honour of their country", emboldening thier countries enemies and exposing their country to even greater danger.

British High Commision on insurgency: "the only grave injury done to Iraq has been inflicted by wild reports manufacturing scare after scare"

Senior British Advisor: "there will be a bad slump in the adminsistration (of Iraq) that will continue until someone strong enough to dominate the country emerges"

On the use of gas against rebellious Iraqis, Churchill said. ‘I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.’ ”

an fuller overview:
http://www.casahistoria.net/iraq.htm#3._The_British_Mandate,_1918-32

THE BEGININGS OF FAILURE from november 2003

http://www.squall.co.uk/squall.cfm/ses/sq=2003112301/ct=9

from the land of the freely scripted, just to prove that your either with us or in jail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/ap_on_re_us/bush_protesters;_ylt=AtHbNzr.SVq.MIoCgaNq0Kms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-